Canon EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM review – Straight from the top drawer

Taking a lens launched in 1999 and testing it against more current models is always going to be an interesting exercise. Fortunately for the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM, the test data backs up what users have known for years – it really is very good. If you’ve got one and have been considering an upgrade to the Mark II version, you will find improved optical performance, though not by much. The main benefits will be in the reduction in weight (2,550g vs 2,400g) and the improved Image Stabiliser that offers up to four stops rather than two stops. Canon also claim the AF of the Mk II version is improved.

On the other hand, if you’re in the market for a 300mm lens and don’t currently own one, then your main deciding factor will be price. The EF300mm f/4L IS USM may not be quite as good as its more expensive stable-mates, but it still puts in a very respectable performance. Equally, if you can’t stretch to the cost of the latest Mk II 300mm f/2.8L, then picking up a second-hand EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM is going to offer you very similar performance, for quite a lot less money. In fact, if you don’t need the extra IS stops and the 150g weight difference is not an issue, then the older lens is probably the pick of the trio as it blends great performance with a more affordable second-hand price tag.

Further readings for the Canon EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM review – Straight from the top drawer

To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.

Comments

incorrections

There are several incorrections in the review. For example sharpness (P-Mpix) score is confused with overall DXomark Score.

For example:Attached to the APS-C sensored EOS 7D, the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM once again puts in a strong performance, scoring 16.7P-Mpix, relative to the EOS 7D’s resolution of 18megapixels. Equally, the Pentax lens scores very well, managing 15.0P-Mpix compared to the 16.3megapixels available on the K-5. Overall, this shows the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM is as good as it’s made out to be, but in this comparison, the Pentax on a K-5 is not that far behind.

Re: incorrections

Re: incorrections

Furthermore in the [url=http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/With-new-STM-technology-does-Canon-s-updated-18-135mm-still-deliver/Comparisons]review[/url] of Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-f5.6 IS STM lens

In comparison section:

Quote:

Tested on the flagship APS-C DSLRs from Canon and Nikon, the 7D and D7000, these two Super Zooms achieve remarkably similar results. Overall we can say they’re the same optically although the Nikon version hits a DxOMark Score of 13 just nudging out the Canon with 12.

The screenshot shows us not D7000 but D300 with the score 10 not 13 as mentioned.

Re: incorrections

Re: incorrections

There is no line for EOS M but it is mentioned in legend in Samsung NX200 [url=http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Samsung-NX200-A-hybrid-with-purpose/Comparisons]review[/url].[img]http://cdn.dxomark.com/itext/review/camera/samsung-nx200/03.jpg[/img]

Re: incorrections

Re: incorrections

Quote:

When it comes to the camera technology, HTC has been even bolder and in the midst of camera phone megapixel race, with 12 or 13-megapixels becoming the norm for new flagship Smartphones, the HTC One utilizes a 1/3” sensor with just a 4-megpixel 2688x1520 pixel resolution.

Re: incorrections

Re: incorrections

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-400mm f/4GED review:

First of all thank you for review.

1).Add space between F/4G and ED in title of review.

2).In paragraph:

Quote:

As one would hope for a lens costing a cool $7,000, the AF-S Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II performs well, achieving an overall DxOMark Score of 25. Sharpness isn’t up to the fixed focal length equivalents (which vary from 28-25P-Mpix over the same range) but it has very good sharpness across the frame at full aperture throughout the zoom range, though peak performance is at 250mm f/4.

28-25 is actually a DxOMark score, but not sharpness score (which is 17P-Mpix).

Re: incorrections

Hello!

Thanks for your interest in DxOMark. Here are some explanations on the following sentence:

« Sharpness isn’t up to the fixed focal length equivalents (which vary from 28-25P-Mpix over the same range) but it has very good sharpness across the frame at full aperture throughout the zoom range, though peak performance is at 250mm f/4”

What we mean is that the 200mm f/2 prime has a sharpness score of 28 P-Mpix and the 400mm f/2,8 prime has 25 (on a D800), to be compared with the 17 P-Mpix of the 200-400mm f/4. Our apologies if it’s no clear on our review.